Author Topic: A clarification, and defense of Fr. Johnson, SSPX, from a calumny (Read 19256 times)

Ambrose · « **on:** May 27, 2014, 09:33:06 PM »

The following was posted by John Lane on the Bellarmine Forums, May 27, 2014:

http://strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&p=16638#p16638

Quote

My attention has been drawn to the following:

Quote
Australian neo-SSPX: more unjust threats
-
Fr. Shane Johnson, Western Australia, used a recent sermon to attack those who had signed the AustralAsian Declaration, saying that they needed to be humiliated and do public penance before they would be allowed back to Mass and the sacraments.

Source: http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/the_rec ... y_2014.pdf

I was present and heard the sermon to which this refers. I also happen to know that the lady who produced the summary above was not at mass that day. She had decided two weeks earlier no longer to attend the SSPX chapel at Jolimont. So the above is not the testimony of a witness. She is repeating hearsay, and The Recusant is publishing that gossip further afield. It was already abundantly clear that the Resistance has no concern for accuracy about facts, or indeed truth in any realistic meaning of that term, but this latest is a useful reminder.

This purported summary is false. Fr. Johnson did not say these things. Further, I discussed the situation with Fr. Johnson and I know what his actual policy is. For the record, his policy is that those who have decided to attack the SSPX but still feel that they desire to take the goods of the Church from Fr. Johnson will not be refused (i.e. Holy Mass and the sacraments will not be witheld from them). Anything beyond this is commentary.

If anybody in Western Australia wishes to dispute this, call Fr. Johnson and ask him instead of further misrepresenting him.

The Resistance priests are, of course, instructing their laity to cease assisting at Mass at SSPX chapels. So, what we have here is a pungent example of hypocrisy. "That rotter Fr. Johnson is taking away the Mass that my priests say that I must never attend!" Except that he isn't. You could not make this stuff up.

On another note, I was also shown the following text:

A priest of the Resistance writes:

Quote
“Father Angles was seen [recently] at the Congregation for Religious in Rome, during one of his absences from Ireland. He was in clergyman, and his physique left no doubt that it was him. An employee of this congregation affirms that it was to determine the future status of the Society. As Father Angles is the canonical adviser of Bishop Fellay, I do not see how [Bishop Fellay] can say that no negotiation, public or secret, is going on with current Rome.”

One of the faithful also asserts that a person from Ireland, very close to Fr. Angles, stated in 2012 that this priest was very busy preparing for the future canonical status of the Society.

So I asked Bishop Fellay if there is any truth in this. He replied and said that no, there is no truth at all in it. There is no negotiation or work on any agreement or canonical structure. Fr. Angles is not working on anything like this, the entire story is unfounded rumour. Don't expect the Resistance to admit that it got this wrong. That never happens.

I have also been informed of a rumour running about Europe that "one third of the parishioners from Jolimont have left for sedevacantism." It's true that some parishioners from Jolimont have left for the so-called Resistance. None of them are sedevacantists. The reason I mention this silly rumour is that it highlights the fact that sedevacantism and the Resistance have nothing in common. Sedevacantism is about careful regard for truth, fearless facing of facts, and rigorous reasoning. Enough said.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #1 on:** May 27, 2014, 10:40:52 PM »

Well, that's painting with a pretty broad brush.

Precisely because the Resistance is a loose confederation, it is not really possible to accuse them all of having a callous disregard for truth.

Certainly, there have been many unfortunate misrepresentations of fact disseminated by those affiliated with the Resistance, and that is regretable.

But I would not tar the whole lot of them as John Lane does, for the imperfections of some.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2014, 10:46:59 PM »

Quote from: John Lane

I have also been informed of a rumour running about Europe that "one third of the parishioners from Jolimont have left for sedevacantism." It's true that some parishioners from Jolimont have left for the so-called Resistance. None of them are sedevacantists. The reason I mention this silly rumour is that it highlights the fact that sedevacantism and the Resistance have nothing in common. Sedevacantism is about careful regard for truth, fearless facing of facts, and rigorous reasoning. Enough said.

I must say, I have lost a bit of respect that I had for John Lane after reading that last paragraph. Maybe I had him on a pedestal he didn't deserve to begin with? Maybe I didn't read enough of his posts, or enough of his *recent* posts.

Here I thought he was charitable, prudent, dignified, lofty, etc.

Why the ad-hominem and near-childish gratuitous assertion?

You realize, John, that "quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur". What is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied. I have just as much right to say, "The Resistance is about careful regard for truth, fearless facing of facts, and rigorous reasoning."

I'm very disappointed by this blatant "rah rah" for Sedevacantism.

What can I compare it to? An obese American man with an IQ of 90 watching the War in Iraq on his TV; he suddenly stands up (knocking over a can of cheap lite beer) and pumps his fist while shouting "U-S-A! U-S-A!" as he watches a Smart Bomb blowing up an Iraqi building.

I'm sure that he can do better than that to promote Sedevacantism, if that's his aim.

Francisco · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2014, 10:55:58 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: John Lane
I have also been informed of a rumour running about Europe that "one third of the parishioners from Jolimont have left for sedevacantism." It's true that some parishioners from Jolimont have left for the so-called Resistance. None of them are sedevacantists. The reason I mention this silly rumour is that it highlights the fact that sedevacantism and the Resistance have nothing in common. Sedevacantism is about careful regard for truth, fearless facing of facts, and rigorous reasoning. Enough said.

I must say, I have lost a bit of respect that I had for John Lane after reading that last paragraph. Maybe I had him on a pedestal he didn't deserve to begin with? Maybe I didn't read enough of his posts, or enough of his *recent* posts.

Here I thought he was charitable, prudent, dignified, lofty, etc.

Why the ad-hominem and near-childish gratuitous assertion?

You realize, John, that "quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur". What is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied. I have just as much right to say, "The Resistance is about careful regard for truth, fearless facing of facts, and rigorous reasoning."

I'm very disappointed by this blatant "rah rah" for Sedevacantism.

What can I compare it to? An obese American man with an IQ of 90 watching the War in Iraq on his TV; he suddenly stands up (knocking over a can of cheap lite beer) and pumps his fist while shouting "U-S-A! U-S-A!" as he watches a Smart Bomb blowing up an Iraqi building.

I'm sure that he can do better than that to promote Sedevacantism, if that's his aim.

How can he be promoting sedevacantism if he is attending N-SSPX Masses?. He also believes everything Fellay tells him, perhaps its because Fellay is telling HIM....?.
He doesn't accept every applicant on to his forum so let's not give this man too much space here.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** May 27, 2014, 10:59:12 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Well, that's painting with a pretty broad brush.

Precisely because the Resistance is a loose confederation, it is not really possible to accuse them all of having a callous disregard for truth.

Certainly, there have been many unfortunate misrepresentations of fact disseminated by those affiliated with the Resistance, and that is regretable.

But I would not tar the whole lot of them as John Lane does, for the imperfections of some.

Very good point.

Just like you can't generalize "All traditional Catholics" or "everyone on CathInfo". Sometimes a group is just too large and diverse to make any meaningful generalizations.

Why not generalize the average American? How many of us fit the "average American" description? I rest my case.

Ambrose · « **Reply #5 on:** May 27, 2014, 11:09:51 PM »

Quote from: Francisco

Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: John Lane
I have also been informed of a rumour running about Europe that "one third of the parishioners from Jolimont have left for sedevacantism." It's true that some parishioners from Jolimont have left for the so-called Resistance. None of them are sedevacantists. The reason I mention this silly rumour is that it highlights the fact that sedevacantism and the Resistance have nothing in common. Sedevacantism is about careful regard for truth, fearless facing of facts, and rigorous reasoning. Enough said.

I must say, I have lost a bit of respect that I had for John Lane after reading that last paragraph. Maybe I had him on a pedestal he didn't deserve to begin with? Maybe I didn't read enough of his posts, or enough of his *recent* posts.

Here I thought he was charitable, prudent, dignified, lofty, etc.

Why the ad-hominem and near-childish gratuitous assertion?

You realize, John, that "quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur". What is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied. I have just as much right to say, "The Resistance is about careful regard for truth, fearless facing of facts, and rigorous reasoning."

I'm very disappointed by this blatant "rah rah" for Sedevacantism.

What can I compare it to? An obese American man with an IQ of 90 watching the War in Iraq on his TV; he suddenly stands up (knocking over a can of cheap lite beer) and pumps his fist while shouting "U-S-A! U-S-A!" as he watches a Smart Bomb blowing up an Iraqi building.

I'm sure that he can do better than that to promote Sedevacantism, if that's his aim.

How can he be promoting sedevacantism if he is attending N-SSPX Masses?. He also believes everything Fellay tells him, perhaps its because Fellay is telling HIM....?.
He doesn't accept every applicant on to his forum so let's not give this man too much space here.

There is no contradiction to attending a Mass said by a Catholic priest in error about the status of the Antipope and holding the position of sedevacantism.

Artificial distinctions such as SSPX or "NSSPX" are not found in Canon law.

Ambrose · « **Reply #6 on:** May 27, 2014, 11:20:24 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: John Lane
I have also been informed of a rumour running about Europe that "one third of the parishioners from Jolimont have left for sedevacantism." It's true that some parishioners from Jolimont have left for the so-called Resistance. None of them are sedevacantists. The reason I mention this silly rumour is that it highlights the fact that sedevacantism and the Resistance have nothing in common. Sedevacantism is about careful regard for truth, fearless facing of facts, and rigorous reasoning. Enough said.

I must say, I have lost a bit of respect that I had for John Lane after reading that last paragraph. Maybe I had him on a pedestal he didn't deserve to begin with? Maybe I didn't read enough of his posts, or enough of his *recent* posts.

Here I thought he was charitable, prudent, dignified, lofty, etc.

Why the ad-hominem and near-childish gratuitous assertion?

You realize, John, that "quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur". What is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied. I have just as much right to say, "The Resistance is about careful regard for truth, fearless facing of facts, and rigorous reasoning."

I'm very disappointed by this blatant "rah rah" for Sedevacantism.

What can I compare it to? An obese American man with an IQ of 90 watching the War in Iraq on his TV; he suddenly stands up (knocking over a can of cheap lite beer) and pumps his fist while shouting "U-S-A! U-S-A!" as he watches a Smart Bomb blowing up an Iraqi building.

I'm sure that he can do better than that to promote Sedevacantism, if that's his aim.

It seems to me that he is justly angered by the recent calumny against Fr. Johnson, a priest who did not deserve such ill treatment.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #7 on:** May 27, 2014, 11:47:04 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

It seems to me that he is justly angered by the recent calumny against Fr. Johnson, a priest who did not deserve such ill treatment.

I don't know that I would conclude that from this post of Mr. Lane's.

The truth likely lies somewhere in between the two statements. I've seen people put forth some very fact-based evidence on either side of the SSPX-Resistance issue, but this is far from that.

While the person publicizing this statement of Fr. Johnson's might not have been present, someone obviously was. While it is a possibility, I doubt very much that this accusation was pulled completely out of thin air. Mr. Lane fails to tell us what Fr. Johnson did say, and so all we have even after his statement is that the words attributed to Fr. Johnson are not 100% accurate. How close to the truth are they? Of course we'll never know, but Mr. Lane doesn't even put forth his version of the statements.

Whether or not Fr. Johnson would actually refuse Sacraments to Resistance supporters has very little to do with what he will or won't say in order to discourage or scare away those individuals from the SSPX Mass.

What you have here doesn't amount to much more than 'he said', 'she said' and neither side seems to have a ton of credibility going for them.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #8 on:** May 28, 2014, 12:15:43 AM »

Quote from: TraditionalistThomas

It is soothing to the soul to hear Mr. Lane's calm, reasoned words refuting the hysterics of certain Catholics in "the resistance".

You really shouldn't post such things when I have liquid in my mouth!

Yes, it's the height to reasonableness to assert that you know the personal convictions (sede or not) of every single person who has left your chapel in the past 2 years.
:rolleyes:

Ambrose · « **Reply #9 on:** May 28, 2014, 12:29:19 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: TraditionalistThomas
It is soothing to the soul to hear Mr. Lane's calm, reasoned words refuting the hysterics of certain Catholics in "the resistance".

You really shouldn't post such things when I have liquid in my mouth!

Yes, it's the height to reasonableness to assert that you know the personal convictions (sede or not) of every single person who has left your chapel in the past 2 years.
:rolleyes:

It seems to me that some in the resistance are more reasonable than others. It also appears to me that Mr. Lane is referring to the unofficial "leaders" of the resistance, and not every person affiliated with it.

I have absolutely no problem with Catholics going to SSPX or not, as SSPX do not operate parishes, only private chapels. Catholics have no obligation to attend private chapels with masses said by vagus priests.

The same can be said of all current mass centers, so I am not picking on SSPX.

If a Catholic chooses to receive sacraments from one priest or another that is his choice, as he has no canonical obligations to any private organization or chapel or priest.

TraditionalistThomas · « **Reply #10 on:** May 28, 2014, 12:29:25 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: TraditionalistThomas
It is soothing to the soul to hear Mr. Lane's calm, reasoned words refuting the hysterics of certain Catholics in "the resistance".

You really shouldn't post such things when I have liquid in my mouth!

Yes, it's the height to reasonableness to assert that you know the personal convictions (sede or not) of every single person who has left your chapel in the past 2 years.
:rolleyes:

TKGS · « **Reply #11 on:** May 28, 2014, 05:43:58 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

While the person publicizing this statement of Fr. Johnson's might not have been present, someone obviously was.

This is true. Someone was present and can personally verify what was said in the sermon in question:

Quote from: John Lane

I was present and heard the sermon to which this refers.

soulguard · « **Reply #12 on:** May 28, 2014, 10:00:28 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

I must say, I have lost a bit of respect that I had for John Lane after reading that last paragraph. Maybe I had him on a pedestal he didn't deserve to begin with? Maybe I didn't read enough of his posts, or enough of his *recent* posts.

Here I thought he was charitable, prudent, dignified, lofty, etc.

Why the ad-hominem and near-childish gratuitous assertion?

You realize, John, that "quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur". What is gratuitously affirmed can be gratuitously denied.

Yet you cannot see, or perhaps admit, that people lose respect for this "Resistance" for the same reasons.

VinnyF · « **Reply #13 on:** May 28, 2014, 11:21:37 AM »

Quote from: John_Lane

The Resistance priests are, of course, instructing their laity to cease assisting at Mass at SSPX chapels. So, what we have here is a pungent example of hypocrisy.

A good point that not many wish to tackle.

Frances · « **Reply #14 on:** May 28, 2014, 01:46:28 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: John_Lane

The Resistance priests are, of course, instructing their laity to cease assisting at Mass at SSPX chapels. So, what we have here is a pungent example of hypocrisy.

A good point that not many wish to tackle.

???????I'm personally acquainted with four Resistance priests. Only one has said, "It's better NOT to attend SSSPX Mass." Another has said, "Go, if you wish, but use extreme caution." The
third told me, "You're under no obligation to hear a Modernist Mass." Number four wrote, "Stay away only if you have reason to fear for your faith." He personally believes "Fr. X. is no modernist." None, even the most vocal, has forbidden me, threatened to withhold sacraments, or has even asked me where or if I heard Mass when no Resistance Mass is available.